Letters to the Editor
RichEmery
Published Letters: 832 Editor's Choice: 191
-
So, what ARE grounds for impeachment, you ask?
[Read the article: Bush administration gags scientists again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just as the real answer to "What is legal?" is "Whatever the Supreme Court SAYS is legal", the answer to "What is an impeachable offense?" is "Whatever the House cares to say is impeachable".
The Supreme Court will defer to Congress during impeachment proceedings, considering that this process is purely political, not legal (even though it has quasi-legal similarities).
So, in MY opinion, the House could impeach on any grounds it deems to meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criterion, and the Senate could convict if it believes the charges have been proven.
And YES, Bush should be impeached for a myriad of crimes against this country, indeed against the whole world; and YES, he should be removed from office. Sure, Cheney would be worse as President (assuming he isn't already de facto President); if need be, impeach and remove him too based on his performance in office.
Let the process work -- why the hell NOT? We still have THAT check-and-balance, one that Dubya and friends cannot touch. Thank our lucky stars for the foresight of the Founding Fathers who gave us such a robust Constitution! What are we afraid of? Our country survived the trauma of the Kennedy assassination, for heaven's sake! What makes us think a justified impeachment and removal from office would damage anything more than THAT?
-
If Dubya had a "D" by his name instead of an "R"...
[Read the article: Bush: "We're not winning, we're not losing"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...would people like Ann Coulter (and I use the word "people" in the loosest sense possible) tolerate even one-tenth of the complete and utter B.S. that they continue to accept from the Current Occupant?
I do understand the idea of politics as a full contact sport with few rules, but COME ON! Look at the utter derision that met Bill Clinton's similar parsing of English -- "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is..." Recall the resistance of the GOP to intervention in Yugoslavia under Clinton's watch. Consider the destruction of civil liberties, the suppression of valid science, the incredibly inflated budget deficits -- on and on, with no sense, logic, or consistency, and devoid of any honesty whatsoever.
No, Clinton was certainly no saint; he never claimed to be. But I'd be willing to bet almost any sum of money that Dubya will go down in history as the worst President of modern times, perhaps of ALL time. I personally don't expect to be here in 50 years; in whatever number of decades still ahead of me, though, I DO expect this president's reputation to remain lower than low.
Can it get any worse? I can't imagine how, but never misunderestimate Dubya -- he's certainly capable of surprising us, yet again, in even more revolting ways.
God help us.
-
Just in from the BBC - "more troops for Iraq" WILL be the plan
[Read the article: Same as it ever was]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As if we didn't already know, the BBC is now stating flatly that more troops for Iraq WILL be Dubya's "plan". I now propose that we stop calling him "Worst. President. Ever." and suggest using the much more appropriate title of "Worst. Person. Ever."
Impeachment and removal from office is too good for this pretender to the office held by Washington, Lincoln and FDR.
- - - - - - - -
Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'
By Justin Webb
BBC News, Washington
US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.
The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.
The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs.
The US president arrived back in Washington on Monday after a week-long holiday at his ranch in Texas.
The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.
Its central theme will be sacrifice.
The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.
The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces.
The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.
Already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.
The need to find some way of pacifying Iraq has been underlined by statistics revealed by various ministries in the Iraqi government, suggesting that well over 1,000 civilians a month are dying.
-
"Should Pelosi feel honor-bond to protect their interests now?"
[Read the article: A bill of rights for the beleaguered GOP?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Simple answer -- YES.
Why? Because, beyond any consideration of "interests" of Republicans, Democrats should be concerned about the interests of ALL AMERICANS. That includes Democrats, Republicans and people with no particular affiliation.
Please excuse being high-minded (or even naive), but our elected Representatives, Senators and President do NOT simply represent only their own supporters, much less one political party or the other.
They are members of the United States Congress, and (like it or not) Dubya is President of the United States. They all represent ALL of us. Just because Republicans have shut out Democrats whenever possible doesn't justify returning the favor when the tables are turned.
It might feel good in the short run, but will be destructive in the end. Include Republicans just like you wanted Democrats to be included over the last decade, because it's the right thing to do.
Hey, it also removes one potential campaign issue in 2008 -- a real win-win proposition! And it IS the honorable thing to do -- how sad that a question about being honorable is now something to debate.